One deadlock in the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill is
the proposal by some legislators that a “Right of Reply” should also be
included in that proposed law, or the “Right of Reply Bill” should also be
passed alongside the FOI bill.

A proposal for instance by Cong. Rodolfo Antonino, is to
insert his provision that:

Opportunity
to Reply. – Any person natural or juridical who came to be involved directly or
indirectly in the issue publicly obtained must be given the opportunity to
account for, explain, manifest or throw light upon the issue concerned in the
following manner:

(a)
That, it shall be in the same space of the printed material, newspapers or
magazines, newsletters or publications circulated commercially or for free;

(b)
That, it shall be aired over the same program on radio, television, website, or
any electronic device as the case may be;

(c)
That mandatory explanation on the part of the person natural or juridical who
is involved or happened to be involved in the public information obtained shall
be published or broadcasted not later than three (3) days;

(d)
That the explanation shall be thorough, clear and complete as to shed light on
the issue of public concern.

Then he set various penalties and fines for failure to
publish or broadcast the reply, like monetary fines of P10,000 to P100,000 for
various offenses.

This is wrong. Right of reply is a right for people who
would bother to reply to certain unfair accusations against them. But getting
published in whatever media outlet, public or private, that the complaining
person feels he was unfairly attacked, is a privilege, not a right.

If I attack a particular government official in my blog
and say that his ideas are ugly and his face is even uglier, and many people
including the concerned official happened to read that particular blog post of
mine, the official concerned can write a comment in my blog, fine. Now if he
wants me to post another blog article just for his reply, it is my right as
blog owner, to post it or not. It is my right, not his. If I decide to post his
full reply in my blog, I granted him a privilege, not a right.

Any person can put up a blog, it is very easy to open an
account with blogger or wordpress, will take only one or two minutes. So that
official can start a blog, if he has none yet, and post anything he wants.
Better yet, if he is rich, put up an online newspaper or magazine with colorful
lay out and lots of content to attract plenty of online readers. Or he can
write a letter to the editor of some big online papers or go to some big radio
or tv stations and counter-attack all those who have criticized him, me
included.

If I or others that he counter-attacked would decide to
publish a rejoinder, I or we can post in our respective blogs and websites, or
go to the same online papers, radio and tv stations, and ask that my/our
rejoinder be publicized and broadcasted too. Whether the editors or station
managers would grant my request or not, it is their right, not mine. If they
approve my request, then they have given me a privilege, not a right, to be
published in their papers.

When a politician or group of politicians are being attacked for being corrupt
and/or lazy, they have the Right of Reply, definitely, but whether their reply
will be published in the media outlets that carried such criticism, is a
privilege to be granted by the editors and/or owners of those media outlet. It
is not a right by the complaining politicians, never.

The complaining politicians have the right to put up their own newspaper or
magazine, radio or tv station, or buy shares in existing big media outlets, to
regularly carry their personal and official pronouncements, making
clarifications to accusations against them made elsewhere.

It would be good actually if ALL legislators, mayors and
governors, should have their own websites or blogs at least, where they can
post their official statements. These are easy to manage anyway and would
require zero or minimal cost to set up. There they can display and publish all
their Right of Reply, attacks and counter-attacks, praises and halleluiahs, to
whoever will be the object of their anger or praises.

For the legislators who are intent on pursuing the Right
of Reply bill to become a law, they should have at least the decency and wisdom
of changing the title of their proposal from “Right of Reply” to “Privilege of
Publication”, then push their dictatorial intents.

Those legislators are not the owners of the media outlets
that they wish to regulate if not control. They are not the ones who pay for
the salaries and perks of the reporters, editors and administrative staff, the
cost of printing and broadcasting, and there are private property rights in
this country. Thus, they should recognize the dictatorial intent of their
proposal.